Community Reputation

About Callooh! Callay!1428010939

If relating the adult phenomenon to student performance is "an example of why adults are scoring below international averages in the US," then the article itself is such an example. It notes that the phenomenon seen in students may carry over to adulthood where it reads: "This test could suggest students leaving high school without certain basic skills aren't obtaining them later on the job or in an education program."

The linked article reports US PISA scores are lower than scores in a handful of foreign countries with combined populations less than the US population. That's not compelling evidence that Americans don't think education is important.
The pattern of international and racial gaps in PISA scores isn't new. Past study of these gaps has suggested that "U.S. schools do about as well as the best systems elsewhere in educating similar students." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010904011.html

Developing citizenship is one of BSA's objectives. But US Citizenship isn't required for youth or adult members (http://www.scouting.org). There is no mention of a requirement for non-US citizens to be citizens of some other country or to be loyal to that country if they are. What do we suppose is the pledge requirement for non-US citizens? And if their country has no analogous pledge? Or if they are not loyal to their country of citizenship or are not legally citizens of any country?
Would a non-citizen pledge exemption apply based on religion? Not everyone thinks of religion and citizenship as two very distinct categories. This isn't just a JW issue. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America made an extensively researched ruling into the matter, concluding that there is irreconcilable conflict between the Islamic testament of faith and the pledge of allegiance to the USA. And yet some Muslims recite the pledge and insist their religion does not forbid it, encourages it even. Plenty of people do plenty of things that someone else knows or believes is against the rules of their religion.
Some religion has doctrine allowing believers to (insincerely) take whatever oaths and publicly express whatever beliefs are necessary for them to get along and gain advantageous position in the social environment in which they find themselves. This helps put a more easily accepted face on their religion while they spread it to places where it does not currently dominate. One would have to consult JW's religious texts for insight as to whether or not JW has such a doctrine.
If he'll follow BSA and CO rules, why not let him join? IF BSA or CO rules require the pledge, tell him and his parents. Whether or not the pledge or joining BSA conflicts with their beliefs is for them to decide. We're not obliged to help authorities of the boy's professed religion enforce his family's conformity to that religion's rules.
Even if the religion forbids joining Boy Scouts at all, the boy and his parents may not know or care. They may prefer to follow their own conscience on this matter. They may even want to leave the religion but be hesitant to do it. Joining associations that don't require them to pretend to believe what they don't actually believe might help them leave a community that does.
Many people profess a religion but act and believe contrary to it, sometimes carelessly, sometimes with rationalizations and different "interpretation." People are taught that their religion is good, true, and integral to their identity. Leaving it could cause alienation from community or family. So if a religion's requirements are inconvenient or even objectionable to the conscience, rather than openly leaving it, people may rationalize or claim to "interpret" their religion differently.
When we believe a religion to be particularly demanding, we often refer to such followers as "moderates" and to those who do take the religion more seriously as "extremists," "fundamentalists," or "radicals." If the teachings of their religion are good, one might suppose the extremists are extremely good, the fundamentalists fundamentally good, and the radicals radically good (whereas the moderates are just moderately good).
This issue is less clear than "For your son to join a Boy Scout troop, he must complete the exercises included in Section II of this pamphlet." Still, what if a family of Abecedarians told us, regarding that requirement, that their religion forbade them from turning to such a manmade source for knowledge?

The OP doesn't intimate that the boy hasn't earned his way so far. Maybe we're missing some details. If not, this could be the rotorwash of Helicopter-Scouterism hovering over the boy as the SM tries to ensure his scout experience is paced as the SM thinks it ought be.
The rank won't be diminished because a boy earned it. It is a rank for Boy Scouts. It's not a Ranger Tab or a PhD.

Not old enough to staff camp? Won't be tapped for NYLT? Won't be a serious candidate for Lodge Chief? May not even be eligible to attend a High Adventure base? OK... but none of those is an Eagle Scout requirement.
"He doesn't have the time, breadth, depth and maturity that most people will expect of an Eagle." Were that so, it could be because "most people" have expectations that come from their preferences rather than the actual rank requirements.

"....relationships with others should be honest and open. Respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions and faithful in your religious beliefs. Values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance"
From "clean?"
Humbug.
"Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and reverent" are in the law. It doesn't need "clean" to stand in for a repeat of some combination of those.
"Clean" means clean, hygienic.

The United States, through USAID, funds programs around the world to help others follow the US example on environmental protection and conservation. For example, a USAID program helped the Jordanians map all the chemicals plants in Jordan to monitor and hold polluting plants accountable.

"I believe it is wrong to force units to exclude people based solely on sexual orientation."
Is this what BSA does? It forces units to exclude people?
Where are these BSA units that were formed by force? Typically a unit becomes a unit in the first place not by having its members are forced into it... but rather by them volunteering for and paying money to become a part of an organization that has long discriminated based on both sex and sexual orientation. No one is forcing them to exclude anyone... they sign up willingly for it.
If excluding someone based on sexual orientation were an important issue for them, surely they'd not have chartered a BSA unit - unless they were willing to do something they know is wrong in order to get some benefit they think BSA will provide them.

"on a flawed initial premise in the first place - that homosexuality is intrinsically about sex."
Yes, that famously flawed premise of taking words to mean what they've traditionally meant, what most dictionaries say they mean, and what most people mean when they say them.
Sexuality isn't intrinsically about sex?